State v. Holmes
154 N.H. 723, 2007 N.H. LEXIS 9, 920 A.2d 632 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Felonious sexual assault with a person under the age of legal consent (statutory rape) is a strict liability crime concerning the victim's age. The State does not need to prove the defendant knew the victim was underage, and a defendant's honest or reasonable mistake about the victim's age is not a valid legal defense.
Facts:
- Martin Holmes, age twenty-four, met the victim, who was fifteen years old.
- The victim told Holmes that she was seventeen years old.
- Holmes and the victim exchanged telephone numbers and spoke a few days later.
- Approximately one week later, the victim, after consuming alcohol, called Holmes and arranged to meet him at a park.
- Holmes and the victim engaged in sexual intercourse at the park.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Martin Holmes by grand jury indictment with felonious sexual assault in the Superior Court (trial court).
- At the close of the State's case during the jury trial, Holmes moved to dismiss the charge.
- Holmes argued that the State had failed to prove he knew the victim was under sixteen years of age.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The jury convicted Holmes of felonious sexual assault.
- Holmes (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, arguing the trial court erred in its ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New Hampshire felonious sexual assault statute, RSA 632-A:3, II, require the State to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the victim's age being under the legal age of consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Dalianis, J.
No. The New Hampshire felonious sexual assault statute is a strict liability offense with respect to the victim's age, and the State is not required to prove that the defendant knew the victim was under the legal age of consent. The court declined to overrule its precedent established in cases like Goodrow v. Perrin, which held that a defendant's mistake of age is not a defense. The court reasoned that the legislature, despite numerous amendments to the statute, has never added a mens rea requirement for the victim's age or created a mistake-of-age defense, thereby implicitly adopting the court's strict liability interpretation. The primary justification for this rule is the State's compelling interest in protecting minors, who are deemed incapable of giving legal consent. Allowing a mistake-of-age defense would frustrate the purpose of the statute and diminish its deterrent effect by shifting the risk from the adult to the minor.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the doctrine of stare decisis and solidifies New Hampshire's position that statutory rape is a strict liability offense regarding the victim's age. The court clearly signals that any change to this long-standing rule must come from the legislature, not the judiciary. By rejecting the defendant's arguments based on evolving social norms and constitutional privacy rights established in Lawrence v. Texas, the court prioritizes the state's interest in protecting children over a defendant's potential lack of criminal intent regarding the victim's age. This case serves as a strong precedent against judicial creation of a 'reasonable mistake of age' defense in states where the legislature has remained silent on the issue.
